Allowed

Bikas Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Jul 2024BLAPL/2945/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a bail application to reject bail, subsequently releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS case involving less than commercial quantity, imposing financial bond and specific conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs.35,000/- and two sureties each for like amount subject to conditions regarding subsequent offences, interference with witnesses, and court attendance.

Bikas Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2945 of 2024

¶2

Bikas Kumar Das

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Guruprasad Behera

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State Of Odisha

¶7

.....

¶8

Opposite Parties

¶9

Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

09.07.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶17

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶18

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail relating to District Mobile Unit, Balasore Excise P.R. No.363/2023-24, corresponding to Spl. Case No.37 of 2024, pending before the learned Special Judge, Balasore, for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2024. He further contended that the investigation has been

¶20

Page 1 of 3.

¶21

completed and the final PR has been submitted. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that as per allegation of the FIR, the total quantity of 115 gm of contraband Brown Sugar has been recovered from the possession of the present Petitioner. The alleged quantity of contraband Brown Sugar recovered from the possession of the Petitioner is less than the commercial quantity, therefore, the bar under section 37 is not attracted to the facts of the present case. It was also contended that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedent. He further contended that since the Petitioner belongs to locality, there is no chance of absconding. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any terms and condition which the Petitioner undertakes to abide by while on bail.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the allegations made in the FIR are serious in nature. Learned counsel for the State opposed the release of the Petitioner in view of the nature and seriousness of allegation made against the Petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, and the fact that the alleged quantity of contraband article is less than the commercial quantity and the bar under section 37 is not attracted to the facts of the present case, and the fact that the final P.R. has been submitted, and the fact that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedents, and the period of custodial detention, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Release of the Petitioner shall

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

also be subject to following conditions:-

¶26

i) he shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on bail;

¶27

ii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever,

¶28

iii) he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each date without fail.

¶29

Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶30

It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedent. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is having any similar criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked.

¶31

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶32

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶33

Judge

¶34

S.K. Rout

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 16-Jul-2024 13:42:14

¶37

Page 3 of 3.

Bikas Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikas Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Khandelwal Vs State of Odisha

Shreyash Khandelwal Vs State of Odisha

Arup Kumar Ray Vs State of Odisha

Jeeba Ratan Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Pandu Charan Badajena @ Kalia Vs State of Odisha

Panchanana Bisoi Vs State of Odisha